4" or 4.2" Redhawks

[AkRay]

Are current manufacture short Redhawks 4" or 4.2" guns, or does production go back and forth between them?

 

[98Redline]

I believe all current production is 4.2" to conform to Canadian import requirements.

 

[Bountyhunter]

4.2" AFAIK.

 

[RKBA4CA]

Canada's gun laws suck. And even though the conservatives we elected removed registration of long guns, they are not willing to do away with the rest of gun control. Worst part is that the gun owners are convinced that pushing to do away with gun control will not work and are sitting on their hands.

 

[pic1083]

I just got a answer from Ruger about when they started making 4.2"
Redhawks. Around 2008

 

[Snyd]

I just got a answer from Ruger about when they started making 4.2"
Redhawks. Around 2008

I bought mine new, it was "born"/test fired 2/25/2009 and has a 4" barrel. They must have made 4 and 4.2 both for a while.

 

[41manor44]

Both of mine were manufactured after June of 2011 so both are 4.2.

 

[stevemb]

Is .2" some kinda problem ? Can't possibly be a noticable velo difference, likely to fit same holster,etc.. stevemb

 

[DPris]

2008?
Nope.
Somebody at Ruger was mis-informed, and they were not switching back & forth between barrel lengths.
Denis

 

[chris_]

Is .2" some kinda problem ? Can't possibly be a noticable velo difference, likely to fit same holster,etc.. stevemb

Canadian guns laws require the barrel to be OVER 4", hence the 4.2"

 

[AkRay]

The 0.2" is noticeable when you hold a 4.0" and a 4.2" gun side by side, but they must be identical in terms of performance.

 

[22/45 Fan]

Is .2" some kinda problem ? Can't possibly be a noticable velo difference, likely to fit same holster,etc.. stevemb

Canadian guns laws require the barrel to be OVER 4", hence the 4.2"

Actually the Canadian requirement is a minimum barrel length of 105 mm or 4.14" so it rounds up to 4.2" That's also the reason for the new 4.2" SP-101's.

 

[GaryVA]

I've owned 503-59###, built and factory test fired in '09, since it was new. The barrel properly measured to the cylinder is 4.2". I looked at a couple others at the same time mine was purchased, and they were the same.

Best

 

[RKBA4CA]

Now you understand our pain. Also, no 25 and 32 calibers for Canadians, except few grandfathered ones. That includes 7.65 Brownings.

 

[chet15]

The highest 4" I have noted is 503-58632 and the earliest 4.2" noted is 503-58641. There should be a slight transition period for when the 4" barrels were completely used however. It wouldn't surprise me if a 4.0" barrel or two appear well after this however. It just all depends on when the old parts are finally used up.
Chet15

 

[mustang99]

I just got a answer from Ruger about when they started making 4.2"
Redhawks. Around 2008

I bought mine new, it was "born"/test fired 2/25/2009 and has a 4" barrel. They must have made 4 and 4.2 both for a while.

HAS? Or says it has? The verbage in the specs and catalogs was not immediately updated at first. The person at Ruger was not misinformed as the transition for all 4" revolvers to 4.2" took place in 2008. Is it POSSIBLE that one or two guns hung around until after the transition and made it out as 4". I guess.............

 

[winken]

When were the 4" Redhawks first made? Would a 4" Redhawk be a more rare collectable someday? (opposed to 4.2")

 

[0314m]

I think Chet15 has is right when he writes..."The highest 4" I have noted is 503-58632 and the earliest 4.2" noted is 503-58641"

I have seen a Redhawk slightly below 503-58490 manufactured 12/2011 that had a 3.85" barrel (measured end of muzzle to beginning of forcing cone), and have seen one above 503-64000 that had a 4.2" barrel (actually measured slightly above 4.2").

Yes, there is a slightly noticeable difference in overall look to the revolver. I feel the 4.2" one looks better than the less than 4" barrel Redhawk.